New Delhi: A woman who stayed with her in-laws for nearly two decades after being abandoned by her husband was hailed as an “ideal Indian wife” by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which dismissed the husband’s divorce plea, while extolling the woman’s loyalty, virtue, and quiet endurance.
In a ruling that has sparked concern among lawyers, the Madhya Pradesh High Court praised the wife for embodying the values of an “ideal Indian wife,” while it upheld a family court’s dismissal of the man’s divorce plea under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The man accused his wife of cruelty and desertion, claiming she was disinterested in their marriage and had accused him of illicit relationships and being alcoholic. On her part, the woman said she had remained committed to her marital duties and in-laws despite being deserted by her husband since 2006.
The man approached the family court in 2015. After his plea was rejected, he moved the high court in 2018.
A division bench of Justices Vivek Rusia and Binod Kumar Dwivedi dismissed the appeal, stating that the wife’s continued stay in the matrimonial home, where she served her in-laws, reflected her loyalty and character. “Marriage is a sacred, eternal, and indissoluble union,” the court observed.
The couple married in 1998 in Indore and had a son in 2002. The husband worked as a constable in the special armed forces. The wife continued to reside with her in-laws as part of a joint family, even after the husband began living separately nearly two decades ago.
Also Read: What amounts to cruelty in Indian divorce cases—not wearing mangalsutra, sindoor
What HC said
In its 17-page judgment delivered on 5 August, the court stated, “An ideal Indian wife, even when deserted by her husband, continues to embody strength, dignity, and virtue. Her conduct is rooted in dharma, cultural values, and the sanctity of the marital bond… She neither begs for her husband’s return nor maligns him but lets her quiet endurance and noble conduct speak up for her strength.”
It further noted, “Despite the absence of her husband, she remained committed to her in-laws… reinforcing her moral stature.”
The court described her as the “Hindu ideal of a woman as Shakti — not weak, but submissive and powerful in her endurance and grace.” It then went on to praise her for not forsaking the symbols of her marriage, such as the Mangalsutra and Sindoor, viewing marriage as a Sanskara (sacrament), not a contract.
The court invoked the legal maxim of nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria (a Latin phrase that translates to “no one can take advantage of their own wrong”) to hold that the husband could not benefit from his own misconduct.
“Petty quibbles and trifling differences should not be exaggerated and magnified to destroy what is said to have been made in heaven,” the court said.
The court found the man’s claims “shallow and hollow”. It cited the birth of their son and her continued efforts toward the marriage as evidence of her fulfilling her marital duties. Her accusation of his affair, the court held, was a reaction of “sheer frustration,” not public defamation.
With the woman receiving no support from her own family and deciding to file no criminal complaints against the husband, the court concluded that the man had subjected her to cruelty by deserting her.
It lauded the woman’s “strong determination and character” and held that she exemplified a “typical Indian woman” who made every effort to preserve her family life.
“As per Hindu custom, marriage is a sacred, eternal, and indissoluble union. An ideal Indian wife, even when deserted by her husband, continues to embody strength, dignity, and virtue. Her conduct is rooted in dharma, cultural values, and the sanctity of the marital bond. Despite the pain of abandonment, she remains rooted in her dharma as a wife.
“She does not allow bitterness or despair to erode her sense of responsibility toward the marriage and the family she has become a part of. Therefore, the respondent/wife in the instant case has not left her matrimonial home, living with her in-laws; she upholds her self-respect and dignity. She neither begs for her husband’s return nor maligns him but lets her quiet endurance and noble conduct speak up for her strength,” the judgment said.
It further noted that despite the absence of her husband, she remained committed to her in-laws. “She is serving them with care and affection, as she would have if her husband was present, thereby reinforcing her moral stature.”
The court said the wife reflected the “Hindu ideal of a woman as Shakti—not weak, but submissive and powerful in her endurance and grace” because she did not use her suffering to “gain sympathy”.
It added, “Even when she is left alone, she does not forsake the Mangalsutra, the Sindoor, or the symbols of her marriage status, as her marriage to her is not a contract but a Sanskara – an indelible sacrament.”
The ruling called it “a case depicting the loyalty of the respondent/wife as a typical Indian woman who puts all her efforts to save her family life.” It added pointedly, “The ideal couple or a mere ideal one will probably have no occasion to go to the Matrimonial Court.”
The husband claimed his wife’s conduct against him amounted to cruelty under Section 13 of the HMA. The wife rejected these accusations and maintained that she was willing to fulfill all her marital obligations. She alleged the man’s divorce petition was a fabrication after she questioned his romantic involvement with a lady colleague.
Importantly, the wife continued living in the matrimonial home with her in-laws even as the husband stayed away for almost 19 years.
The family court had dismissed the man’s divorce suit earlier, and the High Court upheld that dismissal.
In its closing observations, the high court strongly endorsed the wife’s character and conduct. It described her as embodying the virtues of a “typical Indian woman” who makes every effort to preserve her family life.
Her continued residence with her in-laws, despite being deserted, was seen as a testament to her loyalty, dignity, and strength. Her behavior, according to the court, was rooted in “dharma, cultural values, and the sanctity of the marital bond.”
‘Patriarchal jurisdiction’
Supreme Court advocate Saudamini Sharma called the order a classic example of the court practicing “patriarchal jurisdiction,” which has no support in modern Indian society and values.
“It is time our justices take cognizance of the fact that women’s role and womanhood cannot be defined by mythology of male writers, nor the obiters of judges. There is no ideal wife. There is no one-size-fits-all. The law continues to strive toward liberty, emancipation, and self-determination. The law-keepers must keep pace,” she told ThePrint.
“The courts have no authority to define an ideal Indian wife,” she said. “Nor is that question relevant under any statutory law. To expect a woman to stay in their matrimonial home despite desertion expects women to continue to be in service as chattel.”
These judgments, she said, demonstrate the “miles we have to traverse to rid ourselves of institutionalized patriarchy.”
Supreme Court advocate-on-record Pallavi Pratap raised a pointed question, “If a husband enduring similar treatment and staying with his wife’s family is praised as an ideal Indian husband?”
She questioned the legality of the judgment. “The statutory test under Section 13 HMA is whether conduct amounts to ‘cruelty’ or ‘desertion’, and is to be assessed objectively. Article 14 & 15 require gender-neutral application of matrimonial law.”
About the messaging of this judgment, Pratap explained how by valourising endurance and service despite abandonment, “the reasoning might discourage women from leaving abusive or neglectful relationships, fearing they would be judged as ‘less virtuous.’”
Advocate Urja Pandey, who practices at the Supreme Court and hails from Madhya Pradesh, found the romanticising of endurance troubling.
“Elevating symbols like the mangalsutra as proof of virtue turns personal choice into judicially commended behavior, reinforcing gendered expectations absent in law. Such narratives can cast women who choose separation as morally lesser, creating a chilling effect on the exercise of lawful rights.”
According to her, constitutional guarantees of equality (Article 14) and dignity (Article 21) demand that personal autonomy, rather than adherence to tradition, be the measure of justice.
(Edited by Ajeet Tiwari)
Also Read: Kama Sutra author wanted women to study 64 arts—gambling, sorcery, disguise